Take a chill pill, George. I can't understand you until you make a real point.

You would say something like that, I guess right nuts can't help it.

poor George: afwaid of de girls???? Awwwwww....

It's ok....they've got your back anyway.

Thankfully, the United States Armed Forces are more professional than George.

no, they have succumb to political correctness gone crazy. They need to set physical standards for every job and if women can handle it fine, but there are double standards in all branches and women are not expected to carry, lift or run, as much as men; that leads to death on the battlefield.

Everyone is always interested in helping gays, females, minorites. What about straight white males? Where's our special interest group? It seems these days those who fall in that category have to work twice as hard to get ahead as everyone else.

Wake up, I know plenty of females in the Army who could run circles around you. There are no "double standards" in the military, there are two different standards because of the difference in the physical structure of men and women.

Having served 34 years in the military, I have worked for, and with, female military members. As raddave mentioned above, some of these women can run circles around some of their counterparts. In particular, one female I worked with flew C-130s and landed them on the ice at the South Pole.

It is not there are not enough women serving in our military who are capable of handing that "higher rank". The selection boards determine if she will get promoted or not. Therefore, the "screening" boards will probably select the male who was in a combat zone.

This decision to "open more jobs for women" and "if they should serve in combat roles (THEY ALREADY ARE)" seems to be politically motivated, and I would almost bet the "order" to do this came from the White House (maybe even the East Wing).

Can't help but think Mr. Obama's approval ratings are in the dirt and he is uncovering every stone to find that next vote. Good example is his speech to the La Raza group and then executing an Executive Order to limit the number of illegals being deported.

Expect to see more articles similar to this which are politically motivated.

This is a difficult issue, far more so than the debate on gays in the military. I can only speak for the AF, but it seemed the females in my units got smaller and smaller as the years went by. My last assignment, they were tiny little things! No way they could carry 100lbs of gear around the battlefield.

What I do remember is the men complaining they had to carry all the heavy stuff whenever there was real work to be done. They had a point. There were those of us who weren't afraid to tackle the big boxes, but we couldn't match up to the guys.

We need absolute physical standards for each job, in addition to the semi-annual fitness test. You don't qualify, you don't get the assignment.

Bad part about not qualifing for that assignment means that a male will probably be assigned it and the female will be off to a better job that she will qualify for. Males will be further down the pipe while the women will get the cake assignments/opportunites thus furthering their careers. If the tough assignments are not qualified for, maybe time to send home rather than getting reassigned to easier duty assignment. Been there, done that!

Living off the taxpayer for 35 years and still living off them for benefits and early retirement is part of the problem in the Republican thought of making the military the economy. Obama is right in reducing the dead weight in the military. Now they have to get a job and stop living off the taxpayer's nipple. Becoming a productive member in society and working 50 years isn't something to be ashamed of. The military should get smaller and depend more on civilian contractors who earn less and don't come with the early retirement and benefits for life by just being in the military for 20 years. We just need programs to prevent the Bush II stupidity and abuse of overpaying corporations for their contractual function. 99% of military personnel never see combat and now the inexperienced are getting promoted and making decisions on something they have no personal experience with.

The luxury of the modern military. I just read a book that pointed out the expense America incurred in providing air conditioned buildings for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's next, an air conditioned battle ground? I guess you can call it sour grapes as when I was in combat in Viet Nam everyone knew and expected combat equaled deprivation and then you could die.

Dick-2100935

Living off the taxpayer for 35 years and still living off them for benefits and early retirement is part of the problem in the Republican thought of making the military the economy. Obama is right in reducing the dead weight in the military. Now they have to get a job and stop living off the taxpayer's nipple. Becoming a productive member in society and working 50 years isn't something to be ashamed of. The military should get smaller and depend more on civilian contractors who earn less and don't come with the early retirement and benefits for life by just being in the military for 20 years. We just need programs to prevent the Bush II stupidity and abuse of overpaying corporations for their contractual function. 99% of military personnel never see combat and now the inexperienced are getting promoted and making decisions on something they have no personal experience with.

The luxury of the modern military. I just read a book that pointed out the expense America incurred in providing air conditioned buildings for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's next, an air conditioned battle ground? I guess you can call it sour grapes as when I was in combat in Viet Nam everyone knew and expected combat equaled deprivation and then you could die.

LOL, ROFLMAO!

It's actually really simple. If we can cut it, we deserve it. That's it. I highly doubt any female who has the desire to be on the frontlines or in combat, is going to whine about having a lower set of standards.

If I can run, push up, sit up, and lift as well as a man, and meet the standards that will keep myself and my fellow soldiers safe, can someone give me a good reason why I shouldn't be allowed?

This is a positive step, but nothing short of full equality is acceptable. Women should be able to serve in any and every role that men serve in. It is backwards and paternalistic to suggest they are incapable of doing so simply because of their gender. The Obama administration has made positive steps in bringing the military into the 21st century by ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and now this. However, we still have a ways to go. Discrimination based upon immutable characteristics is never acceptable, regardless of the supposed reason. Being a woman or being gay, just like being of a certain race are characteristics that a person is born with and are intregal parts of their identity. We've got to open our eyes and get rid of the "good ol' boy" networks in all aspects of society. Our society has been dominated, and continues to be dominated by straight white males. While there should of course be a place for straight white males in all aspects of society, society itself should not be dominated by them or any other group for that matter. I say this as a straight, white male who realizes that keeping certain groups from participating is bad for everyone and is bad policy.

In response to Milo-2

If you have a comment about a well written post, show maturity by writing a response that explains your view of his comment. Instead of a few meaningless letters that show your age. This shows you are not even old enough to know or understand about the 50,000 lives that where lost and the conditions they endured so you could have the freedom of sitting faceless behind a computer making snide letters not even having the ability to express yourself.

Show me your proof of hardship or combat!!!!

Vince,

You give me hope. Thank you.

If a woman can physically meet the demands of the job and volunteers for it, then why not? The military has always been the leader in establishing equality. Discrimination on all levels is unacceptable and I applaud them for setting the standard for the rest of our society. Is it perfect? No, but at least they are making a difference. Women have fought and died for our country since the revolution. We should recognize and honor them for their service, not denigrate them for doing the best they can.

Boys, we've had your back since the day you were born, so think about that.....

As a woman and former Air Force Sgt., I'm not sure how I feel about women in direct combat. I agree, IF women can keep up with the men, then we should be allowed to go everywhere and do everything. Women have trouble getting to higher ranks BECAUSE they are excluded from combat jobs. HOWEVER, if it turns out we CAN'T keep up, then I don't really know what the answer is. I was active duty around 30 years ago, and the most common complaint I heard from the men was, "If you can't do the WHOLE job, you shouldn't be here." And they had a valid point - not just the specific job, but assignments, too. For instance, women weren't sent to Greenland. And every guy complained that for every woman in the Air Force, their odds of getting the $#!t assignments was increased. But it's not the women's fault that Congress won't allow for certain jobs, assignments, etc. I know things have changed alot since I was in, women now run the same obstacle course as men (always should have, IMO). It probably does shake a few women out, but the ones left are in good physical shape and should be using their full capability. As for combat, there's only one way we'll find out. Personally, I have faith in my fellow female military, I think they will definitely be up for the job. However, IF we find out we're wrong, we'll have to accept that.

I don't think it can be generalized. It needs to be on an individual basis. I mean, the majority of American men can't meet the criteria, yet they still all get the chance to try. The different races of men have different, general, physical capabilities, but we don't bar Asian men the chance to try because in general they have smaller builds than black men.

T Bourlon,

Do you think having female soldiers in combat puts additional pressure on their male brothers fighting beside them? I know the men will deny it when asked, but psychologically they feel inclined to show extra attention for the female's safety. Hence increasing his risk factors in tense battle.

Ad,

Is it fair to block equal access to women based on a problem which lays within the men though? To me that's a similar thought process to compelling the Burka. "Since men can't control their urges towards women, let's put the onus of preventing sexual intercourse on the women."

Just wondering.

Regardless of the training, there is no way in hell a woman can go head to head in hand to hand combat with a man. You can put all the PC crap on it you want, you can deny it all you want, it just is not so. It will just get the woman killed and team mates too. Hopefully, the powers that be can cover their PC crap and not put our military in that situation.

Terry,

But you didn't actually answer the question... If a women can meet the same standard as a man, why shouldn't she be able to?

As an ex combat arms vet, I agree combat arms is still off limits to women due to physical and logistical reasons. As argued by Sarah, yes few women can meet the basic standard for men however combat arms does not adhere to the 60% as the rest of the military does. My example is that I expect my battle buddy to be able to carry any one of us in the unit out of combat if disabled. Just because you can pass the PT test does not mean your capable in the field.

Then there is the logistics, granted its imposed by the military its self but still it is what it is. Required sanitary conditions that allow a women to take showers and sufficent sanitary products make it tough for a combat unit. That's extra water and supply space being used. As is our male units have to go without showers due to limited water supplies just as an example. Sounds trivial however its really a big issue when your trudging around for 30 days taking babywipe baths....

The sanitation argument, however gross the prospect may be to me, isn't a valid argument. Not showering doesn't kill women. Look at third world countries. Nor is mentruation something we HAVE to go through. There's means of making it cease.

Your position that meeting the standards doesn't mean making it in the field, but why doesn't that apply to men also. If they meet the standards, without ever having been in the field, how do you know they will make it??? If we're meeting the same standards, you have no reason to believe we would be any different in the field, nor is it really fair to dismiss us, based on the fact that we've never had the chance.

There is a standard and they do meet it. The field demands more then what is in any PT test, much of which combat arms units also train in. No offence or anything to you Sarah but a 210 lbs to 250 lbs man + combat load (62 LBS) is extremely difficult to evac for even those of us that capable. There is no doubt in the fact that a women can fire, do pushups, situps, etc however the argument one is trying to make is that when @!$%# hits the fan battle support plays a massive role. Even the built women I have seen in my time lack considerably in this part of physical strength.

Again this is a life and death choice, I would prefer marching into battle with fellows who can pull my ass out as they would I. It' not a game, or a stupid feminist or male superiority thing, its a mater of making sure everybody comes back alive.

Gim,

Trust me, I'm not coming at this from a feminist standpoint, personally, I know next to nothing about the military. I'm fascinated by this subject, because it is so ambiguous in terms of equality and balancing that with capability and safety.

I guess, my point was, you can't know how a man will respond in combat either, or if he'll be able to carry you out. So instead of not allowing females to try, and allowing all men to try, wouldn't it be easier and more condusive to your safety, to raise the standards and allow everyone to try?

90% of women might not be able to make it in some of the combat positions. 97% of men would not make it as a Seal or Green Beret. Do we exclude all men from being able to try for Seal training because most won't make it ?

The exclusion of women from certain positions in the military is based solely on anachronistic notions of what males and females can do. Just as is took 30 years and 2 wars (Korea and Vietnam) to fully integrate the races in the military, so will it take some time to fully integrate women into the military.

Until all the old white men currently in the Senate and Congress are no longer in charge are gone, women will be relegated to support positions. When a bullet is fired at a military person, the shooter does not wait to see if the target is a man or a woman.

What's next, an air conditioned battle ground? I guess you can call it sour grapes as when I was in combat in Viet Nam everyone knew and expected combat equaled deprivation and then you could die.

Why should our troops experience deprivation when it is unnecessary? If soldiers sleep better and are more rested for their next shift, then the cost of A/C is well worth it. And, of course, these situations are all relative. As bad as they were, your conditions in Viet Nam were, on average, superior to those experienced by ground troops in WWII and far ahead of WWI conditions.

numerous reasons why....if theywant to be in infantry.. fine..make an infantry company, brigade, battalion of all women... doing the same job.. taking the same chances.. nothing co-ed.... we already have problems with the females who have entered the military academies from the get go.... they were required to do the same amount of calistetics(sp).... i.e. pushups.....pullups...running......they were not required to go thru the same physical rigors as their male counterparts.......even down to their hair cuts....(bobbing)..... because it wasnt feminine....the military isnt/wasnt made to make women feminine........i dont think the women could have endured viet nam

I have no problem with women in combat roles so long as they can meet the same physical standards as the men. What I would hate to see is men dying in combat unnecessarily because a woman could not drag them to safety when they were injured. There needs to be a single standard, not different standards for men and women if you are going to have women in combat roles, particularly in ground combat where physical ability is much more of an issue. Other than this one provision, I have no issues with women being in combat roles. I do think that the military may want to leave the women the option if not pursuing combat roles if they so choose. I only say this because many joined when women were not placed in combat roles and to force them into these roles now would not seem right. Some women may be more than willing to serve but at the same time opt not to be in a combat position. For any women who join or re-up after the decision is made to place women in combat roles should probably not have this option, after all equality is equality. This would mean there would only need to be a short period where the option is given. The only reason I would suggest this is because I do not feel it is right to change the rules on someone after they have signed up. I am sure that some people will disagree with me on this, so go ahead and flame me for making the suggestion, I stand by my views.

Betty, obviously you have never served in the military. There is no difference between being attached and assigned. You all become one team.

LOL.....don't mention "Dets" to Betty.

I beg to differ. There indeed is a difference. When I was stationed in Germany ASSIGNED to an ambulance company within a medical battalion, I was ATTACHED to an artillery unit TEMPORARILY to provide medical coverage whilst they underwent Field Training Exercises. Attached is almost synonymous with TDY (Temporary Duty) but for a much shorter period. My PARENT company was part of the medical battalion. In other words, I was on loan.

Raddave and Ido, I can only speak from Air Force experience, not other branches. Perhaps it was different where you served?

Is there a reason that women can't risk themselves in all-female bomb squads disarming roadside IEDs ?

Oh yea? Equal or capable in what way? I'm all for a woman by my side, who has my back, that I have confidence in, that can fight with the best. Don't send me some girl that can't pull my weight, and tell me she's your battle buddy for political reasons, but if she can, she's on. This is not about equal/civil rights, it's about getting a job done, and your freedom may depend on it.

Women are very intelligent and capable but they have limitations.

They lack the upper body strength that a man has (there are exceptions).

And in combat they are a distraction.

Very few male soldiers would pass a wounded woman by to take a position.

This makes the one who stops vulnerable and puts operations at risk.

We all come back after the fight for the wounded or the dead.

But a male has a built in instinct to stop and help a woman.

This has no place in real combat.

The other roles mentioned, I see no problem with.

Ya ok... Thats fine. Lets have across the board level physical standards. Don't drop the standards across the board, lets raise the standard to the 21 year old male level. That way I know for sure when I get shot on a raid sally can carry my happy ass out.

Viewer: oh for pete's sake: "upper body strength"??Geez givve it a rest already, clueless.

Clueless? HMM. Wonder why female mechanics are required in physicals to lift less weight than men?

You need to give it a rest if you know nothing about physical attributes or military requirements.

evesl wrote "They should have done this long ago- women are just as capable as a man. "

At a military capacity, no. This is precisely why women are excluded as a class. To allow a woman to serve in a combat role is to deny 1000's of better men that opportunity.

really?, I deplyed with half of my team as women and they couldn't carry their packs, camo, or gear; it nearly killed the rest of us.

I spent quite a number of years as a Marine. In all of that time I had at least a 100 women marines in my various units. Out of all of them I can count 3 that I can say I would welcome in a combat unit. The rest of them couldn't keep up on the runs and often dropped out of them frequently, failed miserably on the obstacle courses, and on any unit forced marches in nearly every instance the other marines in the units had to take turns carrying their packs for them after the first couple of miles. So in my experience 3% of the women could do the job up to the level and meet the demands that every other man has to make and the other 97% couldn't.

Oh bull@!$%#. You couldn't have really been deployed, because I know that women can and do carry their own gear-- what, do they have servants deployed with them? pfffft. No.

Oh bull@!$%#. You couldn't have really been deployed, because I know that women can and do carry their own gear-- what, do they have servants deployed with them? pfffft. No.

I'm sorry, but in my experience I've never met a female soldier that could carry her weight. I'll fully admit that most of us guys have issues in full kit carrying an injured team member who is also in full kit. That being said I've never met a female that could carry her kit AND her share of the squad/team equipment. I say this as a statement of fact based off my eight years(to include OEF) in duel gender units. Take my observation, or don't, I frankly don't care, just don't make my job harder due to your ignorance on the subject.

Army, since I had quite a bit more experience than you in the Army, I served with plenty of females that could carry their weight and I have served with plenty of men that couldn't. Again, yours is not a statement of fact, it is an opinion.

There are also men in the military who cannot carry full combat gear AND a wounded buddy. I don't see anyone mentioning THEM. (I went through basic with a couple.)

The solution is easy, and I believe the Air Force might already do it.

Determine the physical AND intellectual standards needed for each job. It's fairly obvious a combat medic, for example, needs to be stronger and faster than a truck driver. Once that is determined, if a person -- male or female -- meets those standards, then they can do that job.

Yeah, tell this to the family of a man killed because the female beside him, supposedly having his back, got him killed because she couldn't handle the physical rigors of real combat. I'm sure her equal rights will make them feel so much better. As an ex-military guy who had a combat MOS, I say no to females in combat.

@ beth, Air force only has different PT standards if you're special forces. Unless of course it has changed since Nov 2010 which I doubt being they had just gone to a new standard.

Also I'm all for having equal rights and allowing women to be in combat if they can do the same things as a man when called upon. First lets make women sign up for the draft as well if we want it truely equal!

When I was a Platoon SGT in a medical company I could not assign soldiers to vehicles based on their rank or skill level. I had to find out if they were male or females because 2 females on the same vehicle could NOT perform the tasks. Yet they were paid based on their rank. We had 2 different levels of physical fitness standards...WHY? were the men asked to do more than required or were the women asked to do less? There is only ONE level of fitness needed, which ones were treated fairly?

First lets make women sign up for the draft as well if we want it truely equal!

There is no draft, you maroon.

Jrae,

There is no draft, but there is a requirement that males aged 18 to 25 register with the selective service in case the draft is reinstated.

Determine the physical AND intellectual standards needed for each job. It's fairly obvious a combat medic, for example, needs to be stronger and faster than a truck driver. Once that is determined, if a person -- male or female -- meets those standards, then they can do that job.

Beth, thank you for pointing out the obvious. All this talk of setting standards to equal the standards for men, or making everyone meet the standards of a 21 year-old male misses the point. The standards should be set at whatever level it takes to do the job. Is there really a need to be able to run a mile in 7 minutes (or whatever)? If not, replace it with the ability to replace a damaged semiconductor in a drone at night, or what other skills are needed. Maybe dexterity it more important than strength.

There is no draft, but there is a requirement that males aged 18 to 25 register with the selective service in case the draft is reinstated.

Draft registration was reinstated by President Carter over 30 years ago. In today's social environment, there is no way that the draft itself could be revived without also including women. Otherwise, women would be given a 2+ year headstart in education and careers, putting men at a disadvantage. The courts originally allowed male-only registration essentially on the grounds that there were so few military jobs open to women that there wouldn't be spots to put them, so female registration seemed pointless. But, that's all changed. Any draft would have to include women. This male-only registration we have today is a pointless waste of money, but no politician will point that out because they're afraid that it will make them look weak on defense.

@ beth, Air force only has different PT standards if you're special forces. Unless of course it has changed since Nov 2010 which I doubt being they had just gone to a new standard.

I wasn't talking about PT. I was under the impression that there were physical standards for getting a certain job. i.e. lifting 50 pounds to be an airplane mechanic. But I was Army, so I'm not sure if they actually did that.

Also I'm all for having equal rights and allowing women to be in combat if they can do the same things as a man when called upon. First lets make women sign up for the draft as well if we want it truely equal!

I agree! I've known women who TRIED to sign up for draft registration and weren't allowed.

Mic, that has been that way for decades.

Women and known homosexuals are always promoted.

For quota reasons, or to get them shoved off to another command (so the commander does not have to deal with them).

I know how this sounds, but I also know it's fact, and anyone who has been in for a while will back it up.

Until now homosexuals could not go whine to EEO, but women have the phone number tattoed on them somewhere.

Viewer your pablum is NOT fact. Your remarks are sexist and homophobic. I guess you just don't like having to treat everyone equally. I served 25 years in the army and never once had an EO, complaint, because I treated everyone of my soldiers equally.

Viewer_Ready....You know a crew chief's favorite word right? Well...that word you.

Female Crew Chief...USAF...F-16's GW1...and I could tighten a coke bottle mount by myself and never whined about all the male harassment...gave as good as I got.

My remarks are fact.

They are disliked apparently by some.

Facts none the less.

And wolfen, I have no doubt you were a good crew chief.

It's just that I have seen too many women try and fail.

The flightline and combat zones are sometimes to tough for "most" women.

Like I said in my first post, I have worked with many fine female mechanics.

And have had to get rid of three times as many more.

And NO my remarks are not sexist and homophobic (who came up with that stupid word anyway).

I am just telling what I have seen over years.

If you are offended, I am sorry.

But I can bet you know many who fit the description I am talking about.

Viewer by putting "facts" in your sentances does not make it so. they are opinions and ONLY opinions. And you claim to have served in the Army, yet you wrote that they would go to EEO, it's EO in the Army, and anyone who served a while would know that.

No, Raddave, Pay attention.

I served in the Air Force.

It's called EEO in the AF.

WTF do you think I have been talking about?

I was a crew chief on an AIRPLANE not a Howitzer.

And the AF is DRASTICALLY different than the Army on all these matters.

Or you can call it the EEOC (Equal Opportunity Employment Complaints)

Get it together corporal.

The average adult woman has roughly the height and weight of the average 13 year-old boy. The main issue here is that in order to put women in combat roles, more men are required to protect these women.

bingo, and they can not carry their own ruck.

I've known plenty of women who could carry their ruck.
And I've known plenty of men who couldn't.

If you train them properly and choose the right women, you won't have a problem.

Vincent, men in combat roles are also required to protect other men.

Jazz wrote "I've known plenty of women who could carry their ruck.And I've known plenty of men who couldn't."

Correction. You've known a few women and plenty of men that could carry their ruck. The social role of women is to trade wet pleasures for ruck-carrying.

raddave wrote "Vincent, men in combat roles are also required to protect other men."

Correct. It's just that male soldiers do not require escorts. Have you ever seen a female officer walking the beat or working highway patrol at night without a male escort? Women simply cost more : another male to protect her. If he fails, he is a coward. If she fails, well, at least she didn't die.

Why is a woman's life worth more than a man's in the modern era of Feminist equality?

Mark-4139598

If women can handle the physical stresses of men, why is there not a female in any (SOC) unit.

Delta, Seals, and the many other special ops units.

We are made equal as far as rights but we are not equal in physical attributes.

By the way who is your favorite female player in the NFL.

Neighbor,

We don't fight wars in gender specific leagues. Until we do, any professional sports analogy doesn't work.

Also, how can you use the fact that we've never done it, as reasoning to never let us try???

Vincent,

If I can pass the same standards as you, it logically follows that I won't need any extra protection. The "over protective male instinct" and whatever consequences of it there are, should be placed on men's shoulders, since it's their psychological issue. I don't ask for (or need) any "extra" protection.

To me that's a similar thought process to compelling the Burka. "Since men can't control their urges towards women, let's put the onus of preventing sexual intercourse on the women."

This can't be generalized. It needs to be on an individual basis. I mean, the majority of American men can't meet the criteria, yet they still all get the chance to try. The different races of men have different, general, physical capabilities, but we don't bar Asian men the chance to try because in general they have smaller builds than black men.

Listen, guys...

It's actually really simple. If we can cut it, we deserve it. That's it. I highly doubt any female who has the desire to be on the frontlines or in combat, is going to whine about wanting a lower set of standards.

If I can run, push up, sit up, and lift as well as a man, and meet the standards that will keep myself and my fellow soldiers safe, can someone give me a good reason why I shouldn't be allowed?

If I can pass the same standards as you, it logically follows that I won't need any extra protection. The "over protective male instinct" and whatever consequences of it there are, should be placed on men's shoulders, since it's their psychological issue. I don't ask for (or need) any "extra" protection.

The over-protective instinct, or discrimination, can also be seen in past claims by Congress that the public "wouldn't tolerate" seeing women come home in body bags, so they needed to be excluded from combat roles. Yet, unfortunately, women are coming home in body bags as a result of their loyal service to this country, and we don't have riots in the streets or even people writing letters to the editor.

I think that our younger citizens are more willing to view other people as individuals, not as stereotypes or averages. Their feeling is that if a gay or a women can do the job, let them do it.

and then after fighting the enemy for days, they can return and shower with a gay guy on their day off.

Gay men do need to be seperated in the showers from regular soldiers.I would not want some gay guy to be looking at my 50.cal.

Wake up, if you are so insecure in your manhood that you can't shower around homosexuals, then maybe you are a little light in the britches as well.

random, gay men are regular soldiers, and I think you probably have a .22 down there.

raddave wrote "random, gay men are regular soldiers,"

Gay men are soldiers looking for sex with other soldiers. Thus, they are not regular soldiers.

You guys do realize that prior to the repeal of DADT, you were showering with gay men. You've been showering with them, since high school gym class.

Radave, was being nice. I was thinking more along the lines of a BB gun.

we are just getting started...

Women are incapable of sales now? I work at a car dealership where we had NO women in sales for the first half of my time here. All of a sudden, we hired a couple females and guess what? They can do it, too! The first woman we hired has been one of the top salespeople since she's gotten here. Maybe you need to go back to your cave.

So get your small woman to carry my fat ass down 5-flights of stairs in an emergency....

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm 5'1" and 115lbs. If I had to carry twice my body weight in gear and supplies down-range, I'm sure I'm going to bring your fat ass down five flights of stairs. Or roll you down. ;)

DisgustedConservative, can all men carry you down 5-flights of stairs or is just some men? Because it is not all men so lets get with it. If a woman can, then she should be able to. Lets stop the sexism.

Derp, I'm 5'8" and 190#. You or any aspiring activist isn't goning to carry me that far. Let's be realistic.

I don't care how much you want to impress anyone.

Napoleon syndrome?

Disgusted Conservative, you should change your name to Disgusting, that would fit you more.

There's this lovely saying that goes, "Adapt and Overcome." I don't have to carry you in my iddy biddy little female hands. I can use plenty of grease and whatever objects around your home to do it. No one said you had to be whole. And if you can't get yourself down from a 5-story building in an emergency, you're not much of a man now, are you? So most women might be too weak to do combat jobs. Most men are too weak to be barefoot in the kitchen and give birth.

The only person I need to prove anything to is myself, and I do that everyday.

No go be a good boy and get in that kitchen and make us all sandwiches.

American Derp wrote "In basic training, we are taught that there are no MEN and WOMEN in the military. There are only MALES and FEMALES because we're all SOLDIERS"

Deep. There's no 'I' in "team" . That always made me chuckle because there is a "me" in "team".

And you can't spell lost withut "LT" and you can't spell wimp without "MP"

You can't spell wimp without wm = woman. What is "LT" ? "Love This" Too deep for me.

Great thoughts.

But when my ass is on the line and you can't carry the load.

NO.

I worked with a mechanic who was female and had the "I can do anything a man can do" mentality.

Never asked for help, (hated it and was offended when a man tried to give her help).

She dropped a 500Lb aircraft wheel and tire assembly on herself while three men stood back and watched her "do it herself".

She broke her leg and ankle, was put in the tool room until they could discharge her.

All she had to do was ask.

Catch 22, Viewer

If she asked for help, you'd call her an incapable, weak female.

She didn't ask for help, and she injured herself.

Men here like to tote around the idea that a man is always stronger than a woman and that one man is worth more than a team of women. The fact is that a team is made up of people who rely on eachother, and so long as the woman is just as capable as the men, she should be able to depend on them as much as they would depend on their comrades.

But everyone has the mentality that women have to double or nothing. So long as she can shoot straight, pull her own weight and that of her battle, and not be afraid to ask for help, there should be no reason not to assign her a combat role.

Viewer if you stood around and let ANY soldier try to manipulate a 500lb aircraft wheel by themself, then you were negligent.

Wrong.

Raddave.

I wasn't there anyway, but, she was using a tire dolly.

Any good mechanic can handle these tires and wheel assemblies by themselves.

And she was adamant that she could too.

Apparently, she was wrong.

Oh, and she had proper training too.

Part of that training is that when you see for any reason you cannot accomplish a task on your own, you stop and call for help (male or female).

I am glad I was not under your supervision.

Oh, and they did help, they pulled the tire off of her dumb ass and called for an ambulance.

ProAMerica,

Why are respect and opportunity mutually exclusive??? If I'm not a stereotypical woman, than I'm no longer deserving of that respect you were taught?

Latrines, showers and barracks will all be unisex under the new policies, so there shouldn't be a problem with living conditions.

... there have already been plenty of atrocities committed on US women in combat.

They were not in combat.

They were in other positions such as supply convoys etc.

IN COMBAT ZONES.

Which they should not have been in either.

they were attacked by the enemy, it doesn't matter where, they were abused and often died at the hands of the enemy; they served with honor and distinction.

Granted, but the ass holes who put them in that position should be fired.

How do you figure that Viewer? You think a woman can't die for her country?

No one should have to die for their country.

No one WANTS to die for thier country.

When you are the best at what you do, the enemy dies.

Why is my life worth more than yours? Don't you guys realize that it's just as hard for us to watch you all get gutted?

Viewer ready, you are wrong. Elizabeth Jacobson was a female Security Forces airman killed in action in Iraq. Security Forces is a combat position in the air force.

Security Forces is a flippin Gate Guard.

Being told to defend a stationary object is far from being in combat.

WEEEEEEEEEEEll Then,you First!

I actually agree with you there.

Whoa there, wake up. We're discussing "equal rights" here. Not equal compulsion.

Collin -- with equal rights comes equal responsibility.

Sorry, Beth. But it is hard to take equality and whatever it may precede in this situation seriously when the burden is not equally distributed.

That said, thank you women of the armed forces for your voluntary service to this country.

sh, when the sh!t hits the fan, a little thing called adreneline kicks in and everyone has superhuman strength, even females.

This is pure bullshyt. If women can not meet the standards, they simply change them. They have dne it over and again.

Men had tougher time in Vietnam than women. Women got it even when they didn't ask, men had to beg for it, and not get it :) Got it?